u/InternetBackwash

So this isn't a very uncommon topic, especially for me. But with the lingering thread of the whole "leaked plan" to do so for the midterms and the surge of doomers posting about this with such certainty you'd think it would have already happened, I think it's important to remind everyone here old and new about a tiny problem with this plan: It isn't a realistic one in the slightest.

To keep this relatively simple, martial law is not something that is logistically possible in this country. The geographic size of this country and how spread out the people are make the necessary authoritarian hold not feasible.

Also, the actual amount of people who would be willing to obey for this type of plan to work is not available either. Remember just how unwilling people were to stay inside for more than two weeks a few years ago, and how many complained that wearing a mask was the most outrageous thing possible and didn't. Compared to other countries that might have histories of following their leaders more or who would have histories of authoritarianism are much more likely to abide this type of hostile takeover compared to America who would be non compliant the second that most people's basic privileges would be affected by this (Also why any violent options doomers have compared to voting wouldn't work either.)

And I know that there would be many to say that "Well nothing is being done now so people would surely obey if martial law happened and nothing good could happen", but not only are there still people going out and protesting and voting consistently, but I should remind you that in February when full authoritarian actions were underway in Minneapolis, the people there didn't just "let it happen", they protested and stood up for weeks until it stopped. And that may have only been one state, but that was also one of the most public displays of community and what would happen if this type of plan were to be used.

On top of this, the amount of military, federal agents, and even police if you add in that one doomer belief about them being federalized so the fearmongering can make a little more sense, who would actually be willing to break their oaths to enact this blatant anti-constitutional plan would be staggeringly low. Even if any dissenters were to be purged and removed beforehand, that wouldn't mean that every single person with any hesitation for this would be gone completely, and also it doesn't mean that those people would give up either. I imagine that they would be much more confident about protesting about it than the doomers would coddled in blankets and rocking back and forth whilst posting on twitter.

So I don't want to ramble, but due to how often this topic gets brought up on social media, especially after the recent news of 20% of Generals being fired and Musk and Newt Gingrich being involved in the Pentagon, I think it's important to discuss how the military isn't as big of a concern with the election as much as some would suggest.

Most of the arguments I've seen online regards to the idea that the military would have any people who would dissent to unconstitutional actions removed and than the remainder would be sent across the country to either invoke martial law and/or halting elections all together.

But one thing to mention is that getting rid of those who would dissent is a bigger task than you would think, since following the constitution and disobeying illegal orders is one of the most crucial lessons taught to those in the military, and forgetting and abandoning those principles entirely is a much more unlikely task for enough people in the military.

Also, the amount of people in the military alone to cover the entire country to halt all elections is just not there. Even if you add in any federal agents who would aid this it just isn't realistic to happen like this.

And to the theory that Musk being involved in the military now is a sign that he could somehow use military technology alone or using it to alter the results I don't think is likely for a variety of reasons that I feel are a little common sense.

I get being afraid of this since it feels like for many people that there would have to be something drastic done to attempt to change the outcome of the elections, but I would argue that those smaller and more likely avenues of suppressing votes in crucial races like the Dallas Primary situation earlier this year are what we should keep an eye out for, and even if this specific plan were attempted at all, I doubt it would ever work.

For those of you worried about the concern over electronic interference with the elections, Amanda here gives a lot of evidence why this claim that I'm sure is gonna spread like wildfire among doomers soon is false.

So this video from MSNBC is implying that if this threat to halt trade goes through if the federal reserve doesn't lower interest rates that it could have a lot of ramifications for the economy.

And my worry is that even if this does get stopped by courts that there would still be a lot of damage from this plan before that happens. What's the chance that this plan doesn't go through or that if it does that this analyst is wrong?

The midterms are nearby, and it has gotten plenty of doomers coming out of the wood-works to spread as much pessimism about it as possible. From people claiming that voting doesn't matter, to those claiming that the midterms will be stolen, to some saying that martial law or something will be declared, to people claiming that a democratic congress wouldn't be allowed, and every other conspiracy theory you've likely heard in between.

To go over some of the most popular theories very quickly: voting matters, which is why it is suppressed so much, midterms can't be realistically stolen (neither was 2024), martial law doesn't work like that, and there isn't a way to stop the next congress from taking office. I could go on, but those who read my posts have probably heard this before, and given how doomers are acting I'll probably make these points again.

And websites like MSN are filled to the brim of comments indicating that the only possibility following the midterms is one of those things, and all of them have just as little evidence as you would suspect to back it up. Truly we are months away from total dictatorship and nothing shall be done, apparently.

But I wanted to just say that when these doomers act like the election won't matter or that it'll be rigged and the results will be nullified or something, they are actually participating in voter suppression by making people less likely to vote.

Those who claim that the election won't matter and that "voting won't get us out of this" are giving permission to their audiences that they don't have to vote, since it apparently doesn't mean anything, that given this apparent predetermined outcome, voting won't make a difference and thus, the viewer can just sit it out and wait for some "revolution" that won't actually happen.

This goes for people claiming that the election will be stolen so it doesn't matter, as they also perpetuate this belief that no matter the turnout, Republicans will win apparently. This belief was actually given by an Instagram account that held up various cardboard signs to communicate that "the midterms will be rigged" before implying that only protesting in the streets and potentially the magical "revolution" can solve anything. (This person also claimed that they would be censored by the algorithm but this was a video from July and all doomer accounts act like they're heroes for looking into a camera and saying that you shouldn't vote).

And given how often many of these accounts will claim the same theories so close to each other, I wouldn't be surprised if they're either all stealing each other's takes, they're all bots, or they're being paid to spreading this voter suppression. Either way, it's obnoxious and this pattern has grown much more obvious as the midterms grow ever closer.

I don't want to say that I don't imagine that there would never be attempts to prevent a victory by Democrats in November, but the idea that the election itself is a foregone conclusion is laughable, and something that only aids the effort to prevent Democrats to win in November instead.

None of the people making these videos are ever going to protest in any way, rather they want to sit at home while complaining into a camera. And the thing is, voting is a form of protesting. And one that is much more efficient than waiting for some scenario that won't ever happen. So just remember that the next time someone tries to tell you that November doesn't matter.

(Also stay away from MSN comment sections, those things are filled with so many doomer conspiracies, and it is honestly tiring hearing the same apocalypse wish list over and over again while they act as sure of themselves as possible)

So I've been trying to make posts about different things people use to claim about how the midterms will be "stolen from us" and why these methods won't work or even happen. And one of the most common things people claim is that either federal agents or the military would be sent to polling stations across the country as a way of intimidating voters and thus suppressing the vote against the admin.

Now when it comes to the military, there is a bit of a problem with the idea that they would be sent to suppress the vote, and that is that they have to follow the constitution incredibly well. In fact, disobeying unconstitutional orders is mandatory. And the amount of soldiers that would be willing to break their oaths to directly interfere with the democratic process, let alone being asked to go after civilians I would imagine would be much smaller than needed to cover enough of the country.

This also sort of applies to the national guard, who are also beholden to the constitution and are not that eager to go against the constitution. You can also look at when various states had the guard sent to them over the last couple of years when they only stood around for the most part.

As for federal agents, while they are also beholden to the constitution, they are also the most likely ones to actually go to the polling places the most, there are once again not enough of these agents to actually cover enough of the country to alter the results.

Now does this mean that if intimidation were to happen in various areas in the country that it would be okay? No, of course not. And I imagine that it would be a terrifying situation to encounter. I will say that no matter what, attempting to alter the results this way like doomers hypothesize isn't as likely as it's claimed.

While many of my posts have gotten lots of appreciation and honest criticism, I've seen my fare share of people angry and claiming that I make posts that say that nothing is wrong and everything will be fine, which I really don't. I think things can be bad and make seeking optimism posts when I feel anxious about something. My optimistic posts are made to detail why things can be bad, they aren't so apocolyptically bad that voting or protesting wouldn't matter.

Basically, I try to make posts about various sensationalist talking points that only make people feel like the end has come, when usually it's a theory about what could happen and it usually never does. For example claims about martial law or a dictatorship forming where freedom and democracy are lost ideals, when we really aren't there yet.

And I would argue that one of the worst things for doomers to do is taking a normally bad thing, for example acts of voter suppression like removing the VRA, and imagining a much worse and way more unlikely example, such as an election being rigged or voting not mattering. By sensationalizing this it takes most people's attention on some drastically unlikely to succeed scenario while the real and more tangible dangers are still taking place.

I mentioned this in a comment on a post yesterday, but I recently came across a post on Instagram that tried to argue that a stock market crash was going to happen in 6 months, one that "would be worse than any crash we've ever had."

Now the economic impact of everything going on could very well cause some sort of recession scenario, or one that could cause the stock market to be in rough shape, but by implying the exact scale of this sort of thing and a time-frame without any sort of evidence or source, it only makes people more likely to be petrified for this unverified event, but also could make people less likely to believe anyone who might be informed about bad economic conditions if this person is wrong and the stock market doesn't crash in 6 months.

This could also be applied to those who are guessing about the scale of the oil reserves running out and implying that even the worst case scenarios that many have aren't bad or scary enough. I would argue that those who either give out random numbers without any evidence or just imply "You don't know how bad it's gonna get", just to sound scary are making people desensitized to all of this and less likely to hear actual experts on the matter and what they say is most likely to happen when the reserves actually run out.

You could even take it in the opposite direction and look at those implying that a democratic victory in November would always lead to impeachment and removal after taking office, which is just not going to happen. The numbers are simply not there no matter how many wins happen for the necessary numbers in the Senate to fully remove. And I know that there will be many when the time comes arguing that the party isn't doing their jobs by starting a process there wouldn't be any way to actually accomplish.

All of this is to say that people who create incredibly sensationalist dialogue online are only enabling their audiences to ignore and tune out experts, ignoring real and tangible problems going on instead of impossibilities, and only setting expectations that aren't going to be fulfilled. I know that it's probably known to many of you, but for those who might be new here, people who make the most wild claims are the most likely to be making it up. And I can't wait for the day that the algorithms change course and don't reward this type of content.

So this is a weird one, and one that I've noticed has become much more widespread as of late. In the wake of the long power outage in Gary, Indiana that has thankfully come to an end, as well as the White House declaring a power emergency and attacking foreign made power systems, people have begun to panic about the state of power, especially with the news that a nationwide power outage would last likely 18 months before being restored.

More specifically, people have begun panicking about the idea that the Federal government would be the one to cause this supposed 18 month power outage as a way to "keep us offline" and as a way to retain power, declare martial law, end of days, blah blah blah. Now I've seen many accounts, especially on Instagram, the doomer hellhole, making posts about this. One of these is an account called tycmusic2 that is claiming that because "we know too much about bad things going on" that access to the internet nationwide will be revoked via intentionally turning off power systems. This account also has over 200k followers and is spreading this type of fearmongering btw.

Another account on the app tried to pin this to a headline from the UK about the government asking people to begin stockpiling food and water as a sign that "things are about to get bad" and such. (And while somewhat unrelated, another account tried to imply that the US economy would crash due to some plan related to dealing with the national debt but idk about that).

Basically, it seems that at the very least Instagram has completely lost its mind. I've seen multiple different accounts describing this scenario in which we are apparently destined to reach a point of this outage as "part of the plan to control us." And it doesn't help that there are some that have tried to tie this together with that conspiracy theory about "digital currency replacing the dollar so they can track all purchases we make and dystopia can begin."

Now I want to say that I understand being afraid about our infrastructure buckling under the fact that the problems haven't been dealt with in a while, and the idea that 18 months without power, not even just the internet, could have bad ramifications to a society so connected to electricity. I actually nearly made a post discussing my fears surrounding the 18 month warning yesterday. But even yesterday I didn't agree with the belief that this would be part of some master plan to control us all or something.

Many people it seems have connected dots that are very far apart and completely unrelated. I do understand the fear of the admin being afraid of being without political power, but this plan would make sure that a republican government would never happen again. Even unintentionally, a few days without the internet and even the most fervent supporters would abandon ship almost immediately.

This plan doesn't make sense, and it would completely fall in on itself faster than it would happen. And the idea that it would somehow succeed in making an authoritarian takeover more successful is laughable.

I've seen so many takes and theories about the future, most of them either apocalyptic or dystopian in nature. And almost all of them haven't come to pass, mostly because they were never likely to but they got a few thousand likes on twitter, so posted they were.

A scenario of this magnitude would be pretty terrible for everyone involved, so I don't want to say that everything in this would be all fine and dandy. But my belief that this would actually manifest is as low as the supposed evidence that this plan is an actual plan. Even something like the national emergency on voting plan has rumors from the government to make it seem more plausible (not likely to actually happen or succeed though), but this doesn't have that at all.

So I've made a couple of posts talking about various ways that people believe that the midterms could be compromised, and one of the ways that has come up numerous times is the idea of the admin declaring a "national emergency" over voting, and somehow being able to federalize voting and potentially even more nefarious actions as a result. And while I typically bundle other similar methods like "martial law, insurrection act, Eisenhower Orders" in them, I wanted to discuss the emergency theory specifically, as that has been spreading around online a LOT.

After about three different posts talking about this as a possibility, including one that showed a video from Aaron Parnas as evidence and another that claimed that we were on track to become 1930's Germany due to this supposed usage of a national emergency to grab power, I figured that either people saw a fearmongering article that scared them, the bot farms started repeating the same thing, or that the effort to devalue the election and voting has just started to ramp up. Either way, I don't think it's what everyone thinks.

Many people imagine that the concept of a "national emergency" is just a way to take power unilaterally, with complete and utter ease and successfulness. Just like the idea of "martial law", it's apparently a tool that can be used at any time, and the admin has just been waiting patiently for the right time to use it.

This is what I call the "Big Magic Button Theory", where doomers take this type of plan or policy as a super-weapon that can be used at anytime with the ease of pushing a big button, and that also completely succeeds in whatever it is set out to do with no faults whatsoever. This is the same type of philosophy that makes people believe that using a nuclear device is as easy as a singular button, and no generals or other officials can possibly step in, which is blatantly incorrect to the actual process.

Declaring a national emergency over voting isn't this cheat code that any wannabe authoritarian president can use on a whim, let alone one that can succeed. The actual structure of the systems of voting in our country are state-controlled. This means that all processes are controlled by each state, not the federal government. And I may be wrong about this, but national emergencies can't really change that at all. And given how the act of handing out voter rolls has been blocked by both Democratic and Republican states, I doubt everyone would hand over the levers of power like this.

And in the event that a national emergency can be used to take power over the entire government or sending agents or soldiers to polling places, that also will face heavy bipartisan backlash, and will surely fail just as much, especially since all of this would have to follow the constitution still, and the amount of soldiers willing to break the constitution and the total amount of agents can't really be sent to enough polling places across the country.

I also know that this type of power grab of the entire country wouldn't work based on the fact that it hasn't been attempted yet, and this admin isn't the best at biding their time per say. And once again, even in the unlikely world that declaring a national emergency to take over power like 1930's Germany happened, it doesn't mean that it would work at all. The amount of differences between both countries is incredible. Even looking at something like the pandemic you can see why taking over the country in this type of way would fail drastically.

The Big Magic Button Theory isn't something that can happen in real life, and the process of using national emergencies is much more complex than people imagine. I get being afraid of the law being broken to try to use it in any way possible to keep power, but that doesn't mean that it can work, especially because it requires a lot of people to suddenly give up and allow this to succeed, which I very much doubt will happen. Americans are stubborn, and sometimes that can be a good thing.

Sure, you can worry about this being the real time that a successful plot to takeover the country and usher in the new age of authoritarianism, but by looking at the history of the country, the stubbornness of the people, the resistance of states handing over something as simple as voter rolls to the government, and the fact that none of this has been attempted yet given the admin's impatience, I wouldn't be too worried about it, and if it were to happen, I doubt it would ever succeed in any meaningful way.

I am someone who tends to overthink a lot and end up very anxious over it, especially when I hear what theories and ideas that other people have about the future. And given that many of these theories tend to end up implying that the future is almost certainly going to be unbearable, I get anxious a lot. Still, I tend to try to keep calm especially in recent years as those types of theories and rumored "plans" have been everywhere.

Earlier today while scrolling on my phone I found a post talking about the upcoming game GTA 6 and all things relating. But what caught my eye was a comment claiming "You don't understand but when this game drops they'll do a tech takeover of the entire United States." And the only reply to this comment said, "Exactly, but nobody is realizing or paying attention to it."

Now, there's a lot about this game that I could get into and why I have my problems with it, from the lack of physical media, to the high prices, to the potential impact that it could have on the gaming industry, but none of those theories typically imagined something like this.

And while some sort of nefarious plan for somehow taking over the United States and presumably ushering in a dictatorship style government makes sense for happening right as a good amount of people are distracted while playing this highly anticipated game, I still have a lot of questions about this.

What would this "tech takeover" look like, how successful could it be, how likely is it that enough people wouldn't stop playing this game when they recognize a problem is at hand, how would the people behind this plan know that enough people were distracted to not stop whatever was happening, what about the fact that the game is only releasing on Xbox and Playstation meaning that other players would recognize that this takeover was happening, and finally, where are the commenter and the person replying finding the source for this?

The answer to all of this is, delusion. And more specifically, recognizing patterns that aren't there. Surely they likely see this window of distraction, as well as the reported claims about how whole sectors of jobs and offices will be closed due to people staying at home to play this (No real evidence for this nationwide other than some people claiming that they're staying home to play this), as the prime opportunity for nefarious actors such as the admin to initiate their plan to takeover the country completely and stop all opposition, completely ignoring all evidence to the contrary but seeing this as a sign of something to worry about.

And while it is easy to see this as just a one off theory from two randoms on the internet, this type of rampant and unverified speculation and theorizing can be found pretty much anywhere online. How many times have random events such as April 20th 2025, or July 4th 2026, or the elections last November, or the World Cup, or the Super Bowl, or the Oscars been claimed to likely be impacted by either takeovers or even false flag events. And the evidence for all of these has usually just been speculation about either the scale of what could happen, the specifics of the location, the date, or the people, or just because they think it's likely. None of this has had any sort of concrete evidence, but it gets views, and thus, succeeds in the end.

A few months ago I made a post talking about how I found people from a year ago claiming that the end of democracy would happen on July 4th of this year, based off of random screenshots of social media posts from certain officials, and various claims about the random quote about empires only lasting 250 years. And in that post I made it clear how the evidence for this was completely nonsensical. And just as I said, it didn't happen. But I imagine that those people have only gone on to claim that other dates or events such as the upcoming release of GTA 6 will be the next likely moment when all falls apart.

What I'm trying to say is, confidence alone doesn't mean much. For a brief moment, I was actually convinced by those two commenters theories about the release of that game, mostly because of that sense of confidence that they had, and the fact that the game releasing in November would coincide with an attempt to prevent the effects of the midterms from taking place, as well as the fact that there were at the very least two commenters who made this claim, so I felt it had more validity. But after a while, I talked myself down and realized that it wasn't as inevitable as they made it seem. In fact, there wasn't any evidence they gave for this, and nothing I can look up online implies that others have felt this way either, so it is possible that these are the only two people on the planet to think this, including the admin itself.

I wish I didn't close out of that page when I did so I could ask those two what actual evidence they had for this, but I imagine they would very well come up with nothing, and I would just be wasting my time. But all of this to say, I doubt these were whistleblowers or even well meaning activists. Just like the fearmongering about every election or every major event like July 4th or the Oscars, confidence in how something is presented doesn't mean that it has any legs to stand on.

I made a similar post a few months ago about this sort of topic regarding very vague posts from the administration like the one about "The world's most powerful reset" which made people afraid about the ongoings of Iran, and after a recent post by the official DHS account, maybe I should make another about this topic.

While scrolling, I found a post from Now This Impact about a post from the official DHS twitter account that had a picture of Trump and the words "Did You Remain Loyal?". Now this of course is pretty alarming and ominous, and it has led to many people claiming various things, like it being what North Korea would post, how it felt like a threat, and just how odd it appeared.

But more than that, it got people speculating and more so dooming about what it could all mean. Some claimed that it could be a direct threat to those who aren't loyal to the admin, that there's some nefarious scheme in the works by the admin, that an attempt at grabbing power could be imminent, or something similar. And what I believe is that it is probably a nothing burger.

From what I've noticed, the admin has a tendency to post various things that could be a sign of some approaching plan or threat or such, but usually with a lack of anything really concrete as to avoid pushback from Democrats as they could just say "It was a joke/It didn't mean anything", whilst making the opposition either scared or appear overreacting to something that doesn't mean anything.

This is why these posts are so common even if they don't mean anything major. Take for instance that one Truth Social post months ago of Trump in a space station with explosions going on in the background with the heading "Space Force". This didn't amount to anything, but plenty of people including Aaron Parnas made the claim that he was threatening the usage of nuclear weapons. And as it turns out, nothing came of it and it's hard to see if it had any real meaning behind it. But this led to republicans calling Dems overreacting over a joke/nothing post, and Dems being scared over it.

Does that mean that there is no chance that this wasn't meant as a threat at all? Not really, there is always the chance that this post has some secret meaning, but that doesn't mean that it requires so much focus.

And I do agree, no matter what these posts and the ominous language of it isn't right for such a high position of power to be engaging in, but at this point, actions are what we need to be focusing on, not language that might mean this, or might mean that, with no way of knowing which is which.

So I know I make a lot of posts about the midterms, but I wanted to go into specifics surrounding certain theories about what could be done to interfere in the upcoming elections, and I figured one of the best to start was the one that many claim could be the way that it happens, that being scenarios involving the declaration of a national emergency, as well as the similar fears about declaring martial law, the insurrection act, or using the Eisenhower Executive Orders.

When it comes to these methods, there is a similar motif of people believing that if any of these were used that it would mean that elections, and potentially all legislative capabilities would be controlled by the executive branch and thus, the end of the country as we know it. But what that ignores is that none of these methods are as "ultimate power giving" as you'd think.

National emergencies can be declared, and can only be stopped by 2/3 of both the house and senate, but the powers that are given from one wouldn't allow for handing over the state controlled elections to the federal government, as that isn't a thing and pretty much every state regardless of political affiliation takes that seriously. Also, national emergencies don't allow for the executive to pass legislation in any real capacity, especially not with elections.

Martial law and the Insurrection Act even when applied also don't hand over this type of power over elections to the federal government, and even if it were attempted it would interfere in congress and the Supreme Court's power and legitimacy which would cause them to likely get involved.

And when it comes to the Eisenhower Orders, these are just executive orders crafted in the event of truly serious situations, which even if it were to be used, would only be executive orders and not laws, and thus could easily be stopped by courts no matter what admin actually made them.

Also, even if one of these methods were employed to send either the military or ice to polling stations, it wouldn't be what many think. Many soldiers are dealing with Iran and such, and there aren't enough soldiers willing to go against the constitution and fellow US citizens nor enough of any agents in any capacity to go to enough polling stations across the country to alter the results enough.

So while scrolling through my email, I received an article from the New York Times about how the White House Ballroom was now being worked on 20 hours a day in order to get enough done to convince the Supreme Court that they might as well let it be finished. And while looking more into what's been happening with the project ever since I stopped paying attention to it, I found another article from ABC about Trump calling the ballroom a "military complex", which led to the usual comments freaking out about him hiding in the bunker after the next president comes in and somehow successfully retaining power. And on top of this Trump's also trying to claim that while the ballroom might be stopped, the bunker is still something he can finish, adding to the doomer's claims about the "true intentions of the project."

Now even with the endless work on the project, and the fact that the most worried aspect of the bunker is being prioritized, there is no real way that the project will be successful in time for 2029.

As I mentioned in my other posts about this topic, the bunker has been intended to be "Six stories deep with military installations, medical stations, and research stations." This is already a work of magic to be completed, but it gets better when you remember that DC is quite literally built on a Swampland, meaning that the underground construction would require immense research, effort, and time to finish, none of which can be found before the next president gets into office. I doubt that even this admin can break the laws of physics and reality to get this done.

To make matters worse for this project, the midterms are likely to be leading to Dems controlling the House and maybe the Senate, which would surely halt the project when they get into office. And given the way that the Supreme Court has been annoyed with him lately and the fact that the project continuing despite them not having said anything yet, they could very well rule against the project in its entirety.

And even if the bunker were to be successfully built in time for the next admin to get into office, that doesn't do anything. The position of authority, nuclear codes, military control and any other ways to do anything successfully are automatically given to the new person in charge. Just like the idea of Mike Johnson being able to prevent the next congress from taking office in January, he also loses power automatically and doesn't have the actual authority to do any of that and thus the plan falls apart.

One of the most common doomer talking points about the midterms relates to the belief that in the event of a Democratic Victory, it would be the end of the current admin and thus would be prevented by the admin through every way including taking over the country or altering the results to make it so no one but Republicans win. And while I would mention how those types of scenarios aren't possible to succeed, I wanted to discuss an element of that theory that I feel goes under the radar.

Specifically, the element regarding a midterm victory meaning the subsequent end of all actions by the admin, which isn't completely accurate. While the results of a Democratic victory would mean the beginning of investigations into the admin, preventing unnecessary expenditures in planned budgets, not allowing various bills to pass, and given a Democratic Senate preventing unqualified people to be allowed in including Supreme court Justice nominees, it doesn't mean a complete impeachment like many believe.

While a Democratic victory in the House could mean the beginning phase of impeachment to begin, getting to a successful indictment in the Senate would require Republicans to vote as well, since there aren't enough seats up in November for Dems to get the necessary supermajority to fully indict. So while Dems can do a lot with a Democratic congress, there isn't a real path for the victory that many believe will occur afterwards, especially one that would mean supposed "scorched earth" tactics by the admin as a result.

But that doesn't also mean that the midterms are useful either. On top of the things I mentioned that would result from a Democratic congress, it also helps allow more progressives to be in congress on top of the ones currently in office which can inspire others to run in 2030 and beyond.

Also in a smaller way, state representation such as state reps and state senators, especially in the South can help mitigate gerrymandered maps and push back against statewide legislation that might be dangerous to those affected.

And the midterms not being the end point is important for making people less likely to drop out of caring about politics after a Democrat gets into office after 2028 and repeating what happened after Biden got into office after 2020. I was actually an example of someone who stopped paying attention to politics after that happened, only focusing again during 2024. And this is a pattern that needs to be addressed if people are to vote for continued representation that makes the country a better place in the future rather than pretending that it doesn't matter anymore.

Even in the event that the midterms did successfully result in the admin being impeached and removed, it doesn't mean that the battle is over, and it seems that many doomers and the average voter thinks that it would be over.

If things will be better as a country, than the belief that the current political situation is a TV show that can be ignored after people get bored or when people believe the issue is solved all at once needs to end. One of the reasons why I think many claim only "revolution" will solve issues is because elections don't automatically result in all issues being solved at once, and the belief that the midterms will solve all issues stems from a similar need for an easy solution rather than it being a part of a dedicated path.

So apparently $20 million will be spent on these gloves which seems pretty alarming, is there any optimism that this could be stopped by courts or some other way?

So the oil reserves are still being depleted, and I felt I should ask again, is there any optimism surrounding when reserves run dry, what would the most likely economic impact (oil prices, economy ramifications, etc.) be of reserves running out, and are any worst case scenarios likely/What's the optimism if those scenarios happen?

One of the things I've noticed regarding actions from the administration regardless of the size or importance of them is the immediate response from doomers to lament that it is part of a grand, nefarious scheme to either destroy democracy or secure power. And usually in describing these supposed "plans", doomers tend to imply that it is in plain sight, but that they are the only ones capable of seeing it and revealing it to the masses.

Take for instance the Iran conflict. Earlier I made a post describing how Timothy Snyder, a well known and apparently highly regarded historian, claimed that the Iran war was being kept up with the intention of having Iran attack us directly, or if not, that a false flag incident would be imminent as a way of grabbing power. Not to repeat myself too much but Snyder's only evidence was that it was something that Germany in the 1930's did to retain power, and he believed that the admin would do the same thing.

This conspiracy theory failed to mention the various differences between Germany and the US in terms of size, population, histories, and other factors that make the same method being unlikely to work in a US scenario. Also it failed to mention that there are a number of reasons why the US is still involved in the war that aren't related to trying to make something like this happen, that being an inability to exit the war as well as attempting to profit off of it via oil companies. Occam's razor is very applicable here and shows why there's more to the story than some nefarious scheme that only Snyder can see.

Also you can look at elections. First there is the belief that no matter the turnout in November, Elon will supposedly flip a switch and thousands of satellites will beam down a victory for republicans. This ultimate plan apparently doesn't need to discuss why things like the SAVE Act or voter suppression tools have been used if the path to victory was this obvious, as well as the fact that this plan would require a lot of research, technical effort, silence, and luck to work, as well as being able to alter the results of counties that use paper ballots as well as electronic machines to make enough of a victory happen out of thin air.

And speaking of elections, there was a video posted by an MSNBC anchor via TikTok that claimed that the master plan to steal November was due to the admin planning...something. Basically he tried to argue that voter intimidation from people sent by the admin during primaries was the sign of something worse to come since, while they weren't technically doing anything, they could be.

This video was posted to the actual MSNBC account and was truly terrible journalism. The concern over if there was some sort of larger wave of voter intimidation as well as the unverified reasons why these people were at these polling places outside of that does make sense, but not only are the points made by this reporter just speculation at best, but it also argues that intimidation can't be bad enough, and that there has to be some larger plot going on for this to make sense, which undermines concerns over actual voter suppression.

Another one of these supposed plans could be seen from the renovations in DC. I've seen many claiming that every attempt from the Granite helipad, to the Reflecting pool, to the planned arch, to the changes to the security on the White House door, to of course, the Ballroom and the bunker underneath as signs of this admin not planning on leaving office after January 2029.

I've gone through this before but again, Occam's razor is useful here. The most simple and more likely scenario is from either attempting to secure a legacy, or attempting to secure money from no-bid contracts and projects that cost a lot more than they should and don't get finished correctly. The reflecting pool is an obvious example of this, but also the bunker and the ballroom are other examples. There is no logical or feasible way for the East wing renovations to be completed in the time from now till the next president rolls around, especially with the way that the bunker has been claimed to go 6 stories underground with various research, medical, and military stations. If there is a master plan being concocted, than it has no real wind behind it.

Finally, one of the biggest nothing burger plans comes from Minnesota earlier this year. I heard many people claiming that the occupation was the secret way to declare martial law and control the country completely. This turned out to not only not happen, but also showed the resilience of people and the way that public opinion made the occupation end.

There are many other examples, such as the fears that July 4th of this year, April 20th of last year or November of last year were going to be the days that martial law would be enacted and free will ceased to be, but this is already too long. Basically, the idea that there is some secret plans being pushed that apparently only a select few can see despite it being apparently happening wide in the open is just fearmongering and clickbait. On top of this, it also makes the normally bad actions of the admin seemingly less important than these plans that never come to fruition.

Like many of you, I am of the mind that while a full on election steal isn't possible in November, there is a very high likelihood of voter suppression tactics being used to move the results away from a Democratic victory in both the House and Senate. From gerrymandering, to voter intimidation, limiting mail in ballots, pushing voter id laws, and purging voter rolls, as well as post-election methods like discrediting opposing ballots and pushing the narrative of fraud in the midterms, there are a myriad of ways that the admin can push for more and more voters to either not vote, not have their votes counted, or not be able to vote, and this is pretty alarming.

But one of the most important things to note about these methods is that they can all be pushed back against by either states, courts, or by the average person.

For instance, when it comes to voter intimidation, the simple act of voting with groups of people can help mitigate this, as well as helping encourage those who might not vote otherwise to do so.

Also, gerrymandering can actually be mitigated through the act of voting in a way. Specifically, by voting in new state reps, senators, and judges can make new state maps less likely to be made with the intention of gerrymandering and removing representation in the future.

And as for methods such as purging voter rolls, pushing for voter id laws, and limiting mail in ballots, this can all be challenged through either courts and/or by states pushing back on this. While many might say that courts would allow this or that congress would pass laws putting these into effect, courts (yes, even the Supreme Court), have been some of the most eager to push back on these types of changes, and the potential for congress to successfully pass the legislation needed to make these changes work is very limited as it is.

You could even look at other methods of voter suppression that aren't official like belittling the act of voting by claiming that the midterms would be "rigged by Elon so elections don't matter" and challenge this by replying with the ways voting still matters and does make an impact, such as Hungary or November 2025, as well as potentially discussing why the idea of altering the results of an election nationwide doesn't work and without evidence is just a conspiracy theory (as well as making people less likely to vote which does change the results of the election).

I don't want to make this much longer, but I hope to make people realize that these tactics can be mitigated and prevented from succeeding. Just because these tactics are attempted, doesn't mean that the election is pointless, all it means is that it is a much longer process, but one that we can still win.

So this is sort of an optimistic post, and sort of not. I was doing my usual anxious scrolling because of concerns over the Oil reserves running dry and what that could mean, and came across a comment section giving every theory under the sun about what that could look like.

Some claimed that Reserves would run dry in September, others say after the midterms, others say it's right around the corner.

When it came to the outcome of reserves running out, some suggested it would be not good with oil being up $5-6 and food costing more, others saying it would be pretty bad with up to $8-10, food costing a lot more, and a potential recession, and others implying apocalyptic scenarios such as oil reaching untold prices with potential shortages, food shortages, economic ramifications leading from a great depression to global economic collapse, and even countries such as Russia collapsing completely.

And given that people who know a lot about oil seem to not know what the scale of reserves running out would look like besides costs being higher, I felt anxious given no way to know for sure what could happen.

But that's when a thought occured to me: Most of the people giving their ideas on what could happen, especially those earlier commenters, are just as in the dark as I am.

You probably know enough about the Internet to listen to every comment about what the future holds since if they were true than Democracy would have fallen dozens of times and the elections last November would have been rigged. But what I mean is that when it comes to oil, most of the people making these suggestions have no idea all of the various surrounding details and ongoings, nor general knowledge about oil and economics to make an accurate assessment about this situation especially.

The predictions of the future outcome have been so wildly varied that it seems everyone from researchers with no clear answers to doomers expecting Armageddon are making blind predictions rather than making accurate guesses (Many Doomers just say "It's gonna be really bad, you guys don't know how bad it's about to get, worse than anything" which I assume is because they don't know anything about it at all)

Now this is optimistic and sort of not because on one hand, many predictions, including the apocalyptic ones, are made from general anxiety and a knowledge that at the very least prices will go up, but on the other hand, this goes back into no solid guesses on what could happen which is a very anxiety inducing thing, especially when none of the potential results are good.

And it doesn't help that many predictions are usually out of date with things like the Red Sea being blockaded as well, China releasing their own, large reserves, and how many times the war has stopped and started and how much the strait has opened and closed.

But I think that the general assortment of guesses and attempts to make certain claims by those with no expert knowledge is beneficial for those who might feel anxious due to someone making certain claims about how "We're about to enter a worse Great Depression", since this seems to be a topic that accurately determining the outcome of is a losing game.

As we continue the seemingly endless Iran War, I've seen many afraid of the usage of nuclear weaponry from either Iran to the US, the US to Iran, or from the US on US soil as a way of creating a false flag to grab power. This has been due to things such as Iran desiring to own a nuclear device more than ever due to the war, and the fear that they could use one if their own safety due to infrastructure attacks could be compromised.

On top of this, accounts like Timothy Snyder posting about how 1930's Germany used a false flag so "obviously" the US would do the exact same thing and succeed the exact same way made people more afraid of this possibility.

First of all, apart from the whole hurricane debacle of the first term, Trump isn't a big fan of nuclear weaponry, which means the likelihood of it being used is not that high. Also this plan has little supporting evidence other than "power grab", which makes it not that realistic.

Secondly, Iran's nuclear program, while potentially not destroyed, is still likely damaged due to attacks throughout this conflict. And the idea that a weapon that could reach US soil is very unlikely. Also, if Iran were to use this, they would face the repercussion of MAD, which is a big deterrent for everybody from using these.

And even if you took the idea that the US created a false flag to justify attacking Iran even more, the resulting attacks, if they were to use nuclear weaponry, the radiation would spill into other countries, which would have following consequences.

Also, the US attacking Iran would lead to potential MAD fears from other countries that might feel inclined to join in the conflict.

All of this is to say that the chances of these weapons being used is slim to none. Even in desperate scenarios, this is one of the most universally understood no-nos, and that isn't changing any time soon, even in this admin.